In areas where that is an option for the victim to request, well then, it is up to the victim. In Bahrami's case, the law allows for it and she
requested it. It is just.

In the case you cited, it was not an option in Britain. So, it is kind of a moot point. That man confessed, then said he didn't do it. Then, when
he was asked why he confessed, he said he did it to please the police and that he thought they would check out his story.

Like I said, in that case, a moot point because the option is not available to victims and it isn't part of the law. You make it sound like
Kiszko's case was such a miscarriage of justice....he confessed. He was found not to have committed the crime, but he confessed in the first place
and that got the ball rolling.

It’s not a moot point, the question isn’t “what is the law in Iran” it’s “is the law right”. We know she’s been given this option and
we know that it is legal in Iran, if the question was just “will this happen” then we wouldn’t have a thread.

It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t an option in Britain, you are supporting the concept. Therefore you must be able to say how that relates to this
case.

With regards to the rest of your post do I take it therefore that you would be happy, if it were an option in the UK, for him to have been raped and
killed himself because he confessed? And that this is despite the fact that the police failed to investigate the case properly, his defence failed in
its duty and that his confession was pressured out of him?

It’s not a moot point, the question isn’t “what is the law in Iran” it’s “is the law right”. We know she’s been given this option and
we know that it is legal in Iran, if the question was just “will this happen” then we wouldn’t have a thread.

It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t an option in Britain, you are supporting the concept. Therefore you must be able to say how that relates to this
case.

With regards to the rest of your post do I take it therefore that you would be happy, if it were an option in the UK, for him to have been raped and
killed himself because he confessed? And that this is despite the fact that the police failed to investigate the case properly, his defence failed in
its duty and that his confession was pressured out of him?

Let me explain a little more slowly. Where the option is available to the victim under the law, then it is up to the victim.

We are not victim's of this crime. She is. It is her choice. And, it is her option under the law.

For Kiszko, yes the police questioned him for 2 days....they ignored his request for a lawyer....his defense team sucked. He confessed, then he
recanted, then he said he confessed to please the police because he thought they would check his story out and find out he didn't do it. If he
didn't do it, he should never have confessed. Period.

And, don't put words in my mouth about what I support and what I don't. I support this case, this instance, this victim, this punishment.

And, yes, there is a part of me that thinks if the punishment were equal to or even came close to fitting the crime that the world might just become a
peaceful and less dangerous place.

Let me explain a little more slowly. Where the option is available to the victim under the law, then it is up to the victim.

First of all that attitude will get you nowhere.

Second of all everyone knows that this is an option under Iranian law but that is NOT what the OP asked. The OP asked whether it should be an eye for
an eye, it’s a moral and practical question not a question about the letter of Iranian law.

As for putting words into your mouth I didn’t, I asked “do I therefore take it”; you have the option to say no. I’m just trying to get an
answer to the question.

So again I ask, what do you think should have happened to Kiszko if this option had been available in the UK?

Any legal system will inevitably charge an innocent with a crime, we can't stop that. I think stricter legal systems, such as eye for an eye laws,
cause a vast drop in crime overall, that may come at the expense of a few innocent people accidentally charged with crimes, where our legal system is
so focused on trying to save a single innocent life, and has gone so soft, that no one is really afraid to commit crimes here.

I would actually prefer far harsher punishments, and more rapid and efficient methods of carrying them out. If harsher laws were put in place in
America, I expect that crime would drop drastically, and yes, people like Kiszko would suffer because of it. The harsher laws could prevent thousands,
if not millions, of crimes that would harm innocent people, at the expense of a few mistakes.

I think it would be better for our society as a whole, I can't see how you can use a handful of wrongly-charged people to justify our current system
where repeat-offender rapists and murderers are allowed to harm people again, and again, and again...

You can have a stricter system of punishment without going this far. Keeping rapists and murderers locked up would prevent re-offending.

What are the statistics that show that this sort of punishment has a positive effect on the crime rate?

Edit - Here is a list of countries by homicide rate for 2000. Iran comes off as unremarkable with a rate greater than that of many western style
justice systems. Certainly not definitive but not a good for the eye for an eye argument.

If you lead with attitude, don't be surprised if some follow with it, as well.

Kiszko confessed. You can't deny that. The words came out of his mouth. That was the beginning of his saga....his own words set the events in his
case in motion.

In his case, it would have been the parents' choice, since he confessed to begin with. The girl was murdered and there were sexual overtones to the
crime, but she was not raped. They called for his execution, but he was sent to prison where he later basically went crazy. He was later cleared by
medical technology which was not available when the crime was committed.

His case was and is a horrible miscarriage of justice that never should have happened.....but it did. And, it did, in part, because he confessed. If
I had been in her parents' shoes at the time it happened and when he confessed initially and when he was convicted, I am sure I would have wanted him
to suffer what he was convicted of doing to my child: death.

But, it in a lot of ways, his case and circumstances are moot now. We have the medical technology now to determine who committed the crime. If it
happened today, he would have not have been convicted.

In general, do I believe in an "eye for an eye" type punishment? Yes....if the guilt of the person can be proved via physical evidence and if the
victim of the crime chooses to go that route.

Originally posted by Mike_A
So what about the case I highlighted above? Stefan Kiszko confessed and was found guilty of raping and murdering an 11 year old girl. What would you,
those who say there is nothing wrong with this practice, have done with Kiszko?

What you're talking about are confessions made under duress. This case is completely different. The attacker turned himself in and admitted guilt. He
wasn't beaten or denied sleep or food or anything like that to get an admission of guilt out of him.

He admitted to doing it. Most likely the victim saw him do it. The subject of this thread is not a question of the man's guilt which you seem to want
to make it about, but whether the Code of Hammurabi should apply.

Here in the U.S. people would argue "oh no, that's cruel and unusual punishment!", but give no thought to what the victim went through. I say if
that Code is allowed in that part of the world and the woman has the right to demand that punishment then it should be administered. But I don't
believe the attacker should have drops administered into his eyes - he should have a glass of acid thrown into his face the same way the victim did -
exactly the same way the crime was committed.

True justice would be forcing the man to donate one of his eyes to his victim.

I mean in reality such a procedure would be difficult because of blood type correlations (or rather lack of it), but idealistically that would be the
best solution.

In other cases, the attacker's eye should be removed and donated to a blind person who is waiting for a transplant. Punishment, justice and
betterment of the quality of life of another.

To those saying that an eye for an eye is barbaric, maybe you should consider how backwards it is to throw acid on a woman's face. You don't live in
the region and so you have no idea about the true scale of the problem.
Frankly IMO any person who throws acid at the face of another person knowingly, deliberately and with malice ought to be locked up for at least 15
years in a hard labour camp.

+Special congrats to the chap who posted Gandhi's quote with a holier-than-thou air about him and then proceeded to spell Gandhi's name
incorrectly.

christianparty.net...
This site has a nice graph that shows the U.S. murder rate for 1957, 1993, and an estimate for 2027, and compares it to other countries.

www.data360.org...
Another graph showing homicide rates. Its interesting that this graph shows the U.S. has more murders than Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (middle east
countries)

en.wikipedia.org...
A wiki list of geographical regions by murder rate. Its interesting that North America has a higher rate than the Middle East, which has harsher laws.
It also specifically states that Iran has a rate of 2.93, while the United States has a rate of 5.7 murders per 100,000 people annually.

Hope this helps. Sorry I couldn't find any links that provide estimates in crime drops if we DID start using harsher punishments, but I could find
ones that compare our system to others.

Why can’t you give a straight forward answer? I’m not asking what you think the law is, whether you think someone else would want to see a
murderer be killed or what not; I want to know what YOU would do if the responsibility was placed on YOUR head.

Let’s say you’re the home office minister and it is your responsibility to decide whether to give people this option. What would you do? Can you
put your money where you mouth is and say, in no uncertain terms, that you would be happy to allow Kiszko to be stabbed to death despite knowing what
we know now? Why is it so difficult to say what YOU would have done?

If it happened today, he would have not have been convicted.

That is absolutely not true. Firstly the technology existed at the time to prove he was innocent; the semen sample taken from the body and from Kiszko
showed that it could not have been him yet this information wasn’t even given to his defence team. This is not a matter of technology but even
so:

Also can you let me know what about previous posts you found disagreeable with regards to my attitude?

Sos37;

I’m not just talking about confessions made under duress, Kiszko is just an example of the general fallibility of any justice system. There are any
number of circumstances that can lead to miscarriages of justice be it forced confessions, entrapment, falsified evidence, corruption, someone being
pressured from outside the justice system etc. The point is that in no cases can you be 100% sure.

But even if you were to accept some cases what would they be? Would it be only if someone walks into a police station and hands themselves in
voluntarily? But then how do you know this person isn’t being threatened by the real criminal(s)? And if this was the case wouldn’t it be more
likely that the vast number of criminals just wouldn’t hand themselves in?

The subject of this thread is not a question of the man's guilt which you seem to want to make it about, but whether the Code of Hammurabi
should apply.

No this isn’t about his specific guilt and I’m not arguing that (I said earlier that I wasn’t saying this). What I am saying is that you can
never be 100% certain of guilt in general thus a system of an eye for an eye is impractical. If you were to say “assuming this person is definitely
100% guilty should he face this punishment” then I would say yes but that is a pointless statement since you can’t be 100% sure of guilt.

Pesky,

You can’t compare Iran to the US in isolation, you must compare Iran to the rest of the world. If you do that you see that while Iran has a lower
murder rate than the US which has less harsh punishment it has a higher rate than the UK, Germany, France, Canada and a large number of other nations
that also have less harsh punishment. Thus you can’t say, based on the statistics, that the eye for an eye system of punishment has a definitive
positive effect on the crime rate.

No that’s in general, I want to know what you would do when presented with a real case, a real person you know turned out to be innocent. You
can’t hide behind hypotheticals and “in general”. As far as the justice system was concerned he was guilty beyond a doubt and if you do support
an eye for an eye style of punishment he would have been brutally stabbed and killed should the family wish it. Would you support that despite knowing
what we know now?

No this is about “"eye for an eye" punishment should happen? Or should he be punished with imprisonment or by other means?”

This is what you initially asked.

After a discussion over Kiszko, I answered your question this way:

In general, do I believe in an "eye for an eye" type punishment? Yes....if the guilt of the person can be proved via physical evidence and if the
victim of the crime chooses to go that route.

And, now, you want me to answer a hypothetical question based on a 1975 case where the medical technology is no where near what we have today and with
my somehow being able to know the man is innocent?

Moot point....and a trap, to boot.

That would not happen today with our medical technology and defense team that wasn't asleep at the wheel. I support "eye for an eye" punishment as
long as the criteria I listed when I first answered your question is met.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.